Share This Story!

Federal judge refuses to block HB 1523 from going forward

UTo receive a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must show “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm th

A federal judge denied a preliminary injunction to block House Bill 1523 from going into effect July 1.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves issued an order denying the preliminary injunction in the lawsuit filed in early May by the ACLU of Mississippi on behalf of same-sex couple Nykolas Alford and Stephen Thomas of Meridian, who have been engaged for nearly two years.

"It makes us feel like second-class citizens," Alford said of the law last month. "You should serve the entire public."

Reeves said in a four-page order that "Because injunctions regulate future conduct, the plaintiff must allege and ultimately prove a real and immediate — as opposed to a merely conjectural or hypothetical — threat of future injury."

Reeves said the motion for a preliminary injunction fails because the plaintiffs haven't shown the injury is imminent.

"None of the plaintiffs are at imminent risk of injury," Reeves said. "Alford and Thomas' injury, if one exists, would arise when they apply for a marriage license. But they declare that they will apply for a marriage license sometime within the next three years. That is not imminent."

Despite the ACLU loss, the constitutionality of HB 1523 is still an open question, and Judge Reeves still could strike it down in the cases set for hearing on Thursday, said attorney Rob McDuff, who along with the Mississippi Center for Justice represent plaintiffs in a different challenge to HB 1523.

"Those cases raise different grounds from the ACLU's case, and involve a much broader challenge to HB 1523. It is still possible the judge will enjoin HB 1523 before it goes into effect July 1," McDuff said.

Alford and Thomas have said when HB 1523 passed "it was heartbreaking because it takes away our chance to finally be treated equally. At a time when we’re supposed to be excited as a couple engaged to be married, this law permits discrimination against us simply because of who we are. This is not the Mississippi we’re proud to call home. We’re hopeful others will come to realize this and not allow this harmful measure to become law.”

The bill would allow government officials and businesses to deny services, based on religious beliefs or moral convictions, to gay couples wishing to get married. Opponents say the measure would sanction unconstitutional discrimination against gay people and others. Supporters of the bill say it is to protect the rights of individuals' religious beliefs.

The lawsuit says: "On its face, HB 1523 violates the 14th Amendment by subjecting the lawful marriages of same-sex couples to different terms and conditions than those afforded to different-sex couples. By creating a separate and unequal set of laws applying only to the marriages of same-sex couples, HB 1523 imposes a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all married same-sex couples in Mississippi."

Human Rights Campaign Mississippi State Director Rob Hill issued the following statement in response to Reeves’ decision not to block the bill from taking effect July 1:

“H.B. 1523 represents the worst of Mississippi. If allowed to go into effect next week, it will lead to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer) Mississippians at work, school and in family life," Hill said. "The business community — including local and national companies and organizations such as Nissan, General Electric, the Mississippi Economic Council, the Mississippi Manufacturing Association and more — has roundly condemned this dangerous bill. It will do harm to our community, our families and our economy and we must not allow it to stand. In the coming weeks, HRC will continue our ongoing efforts to ensure this bill is ultimately struck down or repealed.”